Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
After the news over the past few months about the global uprisings against tyrannical and non-responsive governments, I have pondered why the United States has not had more people in the street protesting the economic inequality that we are facing here at home?
We have seen uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Spain, Greece and many more places, but at best we have seen large numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio protesting about State governments trying to remove collective bargaining rights away from state employees. One group of dedicated and non-violent protesters is especially interesting to me since they have taken to the streets and they have stayed there to press their fight. It is a group in Spain called the Indignados. They are camped out in various areas of Spain in an attempt to draw the country’s and the world’s attention to what they see as the Spanish government’s attempts to cater to the bankers and not to Main Street.
“Thursday night Madrid’s city centre offered a glimpse of what Western democracies have become, as thousands of unarmed nonviolent civilians with their hands up in the air shouting “these are our weapons” and “this is a dictatorship” were beaten by police commandos in full riot gear. This event was the culmination of a month of intense mobilizations across the country by the popular movement known as the ‘Indignados’. People, whom despite being ignored by the government have made their voices heard, as banking cartels, European bureaucrats, rating agencies and the country’s elites continue in their frantic push to sell-off Spain’s remaining public wealth, and persist in the implementation of drastic cuts to the welfare state. The ‘Indignados’ are fully aware of the fact that their government does not represent them, whenever they congregate they shout that loud and clear. They know that only popular unity will salvage them from the train wreck, which complicit speculators and politicians have created, and as they read the financial news, they know things can only get worse. When the EU announced today that the economic crisis is no longer restricted to the Euro-zone periphery countries, people in the movement understood that this could only mean bad news for them.” Truthout
Now, we have had some Tea Party protests, but their numbers were paltry in comparison to the Spanish protests. The numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio were the closest to the Spain numbers, but those protesters were not met with wide-spread beatings at the hands of the government and police and they are still not camping out in Madison and Columbus as they are in Madrid.
Would protestors in the United States ever commit to a continuing protest for months in Washington, D.C.? These Indignados in Spain, are continuing to protest what they see as government attempts to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class. Why haven’t we seen tent cities springing up in Washington, D.C. and in state capitals across the country? Many progressives and liberals have claimed that Washington is working only for the bankers and Wall Street barons, so why aren’t our streets filled with dedicated people who are willing to nonviolently protest against the Rich getting richer, while the middle class and poor seem to get poorer? Is the claim of rising inequality between the rich and poor true?
Where is the evidence that the income disparity is growing in the United States? … “in dollar terms, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are falling further behind them. The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.” Huffington Post
With those depressing numbers, why haven’t American “Indignados” taken over Washington, D.C. like their Spanish counterparts did in Madrid? Are Americans just too lazy or indifferent to their plight? Have they given up being able to make a real difference in Washington? Why aren’t you and I there in Washington pressing our claims for economic equality? Finally, what will it take for the American poor and jobless to stand up and say, enough is enough? Maybe you have the answer for these American Indignados!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
“I’ve noticed that more than a few regulars are also dismayed at your uncivil antics. You seem to be a lone wolf at this point and it’s hard to see what you are trying to accomplish.”
Name them and contrast that with the majority who are disgusted with your disruptive antics and puerile arguments.
@GeneH,
I know it’s cruel of me to wait this long to tell you this, but you’ve been unintentionally and obliviously arguing that “we the people” is based on the legal fiction of, how’d you put it, “consent implied by birth.”
This might set a record for the depth of the fail, compounded only by your extreme arrogance.
1. You denied that WTP was based on a legal fiction.
2. Then you argued that it wasn’t but inadvertently argued the opposite.
3. You failed to realized this.
4. And will no doubt respond with a hilariously twisted explanation of why it wasn’t a mistake at all.
Let the dancing begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACpNVD5GMUw
You never disappoint, Gene.
hahahaha guess the world bankers think they’ve done enough to tear apart the fabric which made america so great
puzzling
1, August 12, 2011 at 12:16 am
Have you heard of brand equity? Lifetime value of a customer?
Do you really believe that firms are automatically inclined to put out shoddy, unsafe products? How long do you think such a firm would survive if customer could choose higher quality, safer alternatives? Profitability is compatible with and even driven by quality and safety.
=========================================================
like asbestos? or how the automotive industry fought seat belts, emission controls, switching to unleaded gasoline,crash testing, etc etc…
or cigarettes
puzzling1, August 12, 2011 at 12:16 am
—————————————-
ideally
@GeneH
“What I’m talking about is common knowledge of any competent person with a legal education. ”
So common, that you can’t find any support apparently. You’re entire argument hinges on what amounts to your word and some cheap jokes.
You’re the Ted McGinley of legal analysis.
Yap, yap, yap, kderosa.
You’re had as a matter of logic and legal reasoning. What I’m talking about is common knowledge of any competent person with a legal education. If you don’t know basics like capacity and how citizenship works, go back to law school. If you want cites for stuff you should have learned as a 1L, do your own research or I can send you a bill.
Nice try on calling me a dictator though. Not very civil though. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You’re letting your frustration at your inability to reason and argue get the better of you. It’s a good thing I don’t take you seriously and have even less reason to do so now. I’m going to bed now so you feel free to stew in the juices of your still inadequate argument.
@GeneH
“No, I’ve established that your consent once you’ve reached the age of capacity runs with the retention of your citizenship. That you want your citizenship cake and to eat it to is your problem.”
You’ve established nothing. You merely stated it without any authority or support. Wait, did you think the Fonzi video was your support?
Once a dictator, always a dictator.
@GeneH
“but apparently I’m the only one who gets the fact that I can revoke my consent implied by birth at any time now that I have the legal capacity to do so….You’ve actually got a pretty good deal.”
Where’d you pull that out of? I just looked through the constitution and the social contract and didn’t see that part.
A deal, implies a contract, and a contract requires consent.
“As a citizen, no matter if born or naturalized, you agree to be bound by the rule of law and institutions of the U.S. government as long as you retain that citizenship. It’s a package deal.”
Where have I agreed? By what authority?
“The key to this scenario is that you have no legal authority. The government has legal authority. Your ridiculous scenario begs the question that they don’t. Sorry, but they do.”
Actually, your ridiculous answer begs the question that they do, your apology notwithsatnding.
“Your consent comes into play when you reach the age of legal competence. It’s not eliminated. It’s delayed because children lack capacity.”
Again, where are you pulling this from?
“That would be your incorrect as well as a legally illogical and facile opinion, because the acquiescence to the rule of law runs with the citizenship.”
You haven’t established the authority for the rule of law, so there is no duty to obey. You haven’y even established by what authority a country can declare me a citizen and force me to obey their rules.
“No. It’s not ambiguous in the least. Your reasons for remaining here are irrelevant. Either you value your express consent enough to renounce your citizenship and leave or you don’t.”
Where have I expressed consent anywhere? This is a new argument even for you.
“but to pretend that they somehow rob you of your option to revoke your consent is both ridiculous and untrue.”
I didn’t make that claim. That is merely your misreading. My claim is that merely staying does not imply any sort of consent since I can be staying here for many reasons other than to merely expressing my consent to be bound by the laws.
“Not specifically, but in general terms, they did accept the consequences of living under the jurisdiction of German law when they stayed.”
Interesting mentality you’ve expressed there.
By the way, kderosa, if you’ve been a very naughty boy, you might want to keep in mind that many countries won’t allow convicted felons to visit let alone immigrate. That again would be entirely on you.
kderosa,
“You must feel somewhat foolish by this gratuitous statement. Especially since, if you were acting civilly you would have not felt compelled to make it. That would be good reason for behaving yourself–to look less foolish.”
No, I feel badly for you that I keep having to point out that your reasoning is either childlike or delusional.
“’Also, you keep misusing the term legal fiction. It’s a term of art and if you’re really a lawyer, you should know better. The social contract isn’t a legal fiction. It’s the foundation of government.’
It is a legal fiction because the notion of popular sovereignty, “we the people” requires consent. And there is no consent for most of us. Or at least, you’ve failed to establish it so far.”
No, I’ve established that your consent once you’ve reached the age of capacity runs with the retention of your citizenship. That you want your citizenship cake and to eat it to is your problem.
kderosa,
“You’re saying then that by my failure to emigrate, I have somehow consented to to be bound to obey the laws of the U.S. First, no one has every asked me for my consent, or you for yours. Immigrants take an oath to obey the laws, but those of us born within the boundaries of the U.S. have not been asked and are not required to take any such oath promising to obey the laws.”
Nope, you don’t have to take the test because you are born here. No one has asked me or you for our consent, but apparently I’m the only one who gets the fact that I can revoke my consent implied by birth at any time now that I have the legal capacity to do so. Contrast this with North Korea, where you do have swear oaths of loyalty and are not allowed to leave the social contract except by escape or in a body bag. You’ve actually got a pretty good deal.
“Now consider for a moment the implication of such a demand. Suppose I refused to take such an oath, would I then not be bound to obey the laws.”
Why not try that as a defense some time. Get back us on how that works you for you. That’s assuming you can get Internet access in prison.
“Could I be expelled from the country?”
Theoretically, yes. As a citizen, no matter if born or naturalized, you agree to be bound by the rule of law and institutions of the U.S. government as long as you retain that citizenship. It’s a package deal.
“Now consider this, suppose I come to you and demand that you sign an oath to respect my commands and you refuse.”
I would be right to refuse as you have no legitimate Constitutional or other legal authority to demand a damn thing from me.
“Upon my refusal I claim the right to your house and order you to leave the country. What is your response?”
I’d warn you to leave as a trespasser and call the police to have you arrested. If you became violent, I’d shoot you. Dead.
“That such a demand is absurd? That I have no authority to demand that you take an oath, so you are free to ignore me? That your refusal in no way obligates you to leave the country?”
I’d say all of the above before telling you to leave, making a citizens arrest or shooting if you if tried to use force against me, my family or property. The key to this scenario is that you have no legal authority. The government has legal authority. Your ridiculous scenario begs the question that they don’t. Sorry, but they do.
“My authority can only come from your explicit consent. If the reason for taking the oath is to give lawmakers authority by our consent, then unless they first have authority they cannot demand that we take an oath. And, if they have the authority, then the oath would not be necessary to establish authority.”
kderosa, when you find a baby born here capable of consent, you get back to me on that. Your consent comes into play when you reach the age of legal competence. It’s not eliminated. It’s delayed because children lack capacity.
“As such, it is equally unwarranted to base authority of lawmakers on the tacit consent of everyone who chooses to live here. Choosing to live here only indicates consent if the lawmakers have the initial authority to demand your obedience of your exit in the first place.”
That would be your incorrect as well as a legally illogical and facile opinion, because the acquiescence to the rule of law runs with the citizenship. Absent a parent or guardian willing to help you immigrate to another country before you reach the age of competency, you’re stuck until you do. Sorry!
“Last, merely staying in country is highly ambiguous with regard to consent. I can be remaining here for many reasons, job, family, not wanting to learn another language, that do not imply consent to be bound by laws in any way.”
No. It’s not ambiguous in the least. Your reasons for remaining here are irrelevant. Either you value your express consent enough to renounce your citizenship and leave or you don’t. If you have extraneous factors that make it more convenient for you to stay here, then your convenience is obviously the more important factor in your decision making, but to pretend that they somehow rob you of your option to revoke your consent is both ridiculous and untrue. The only thing stopping you from removing yourself from the jurisdiction of the laws of the U.S. is your unwillingness to leave and seek citizenship elsewhere. That’s on you and you alone.
“For example, many jews continued to live in Germany after they had a chance to escape, are we to conclude from their very presence that they consented to the Nuremberg laws?”
Not specifically, but in general terms, they did accept the consequences of living under the jurisdiction of German law when they stayed. That such a decision worked out tragically for them is another issue and this line of reasoning is simply an absurd appeal to emotion.
That was an exceptionally weak argument on your part, Fonz.
Woosty, you wrote:
Have you heard of brand equity? Lifetime value of a customer?
Do you really believe that firms are automatically inclined to put out shoddy, unsafe products? How long do you think such a firm would survive if customer could choose higher quality, safer alternatives? Profitability is compatible with and even driven by quality and safety.
Government regulation is used to protect inferior corporations from higher-quality competitors just as we see with agribusiness, mail delivery, schools, and medicine to name just a few.
@GeneH
“Then they are free to complain as well as FFLEO did. Again, if you’ve got a problem with how I address you, you know your options, but whining to me isn’t going to result in anything but my continued amusement.”
This isn’t responsive to my question either.
As I’ve indicated, your conduct is irrelevant to me and I know my options.
@GeneH
I just realized you made the exact same argument four times. That is four fails.
“Again, the argument of a child (to expect the unrealistic is the hallmark of childish thinking or delusional thinking, take your pick) and unsupported by the reality of the situation. If you wish to revoke your consent, you are perfectly free – I’d even say encouraged – to do so.”
You must feel somewhat foolish by this gratuitous statement. Especially since, if you were acting civilly you would have not felt compelled to make it. That would be good reason for behaving yourself–to look less foolish.
“Also, you keep misusing the term legal fiction. It’s a term of art and if you’re really a lawyer, you should know better. The social contract isn’t a legal fiction. It’s the foundation of government.”
It is a legal fiction because the notion of popular sovereignty, “we the people” requires consent. And there is no consent for most of us. Or at least, you’ve failed to establish it so far.
Do you want a few hints?
ekeyra1, August 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm
My only point is that people should be able to decide for themselves the level of risk taking when buying any product, and if they choose not to then they only have themselves to blame. People lie, thats human nature. Caveat emptor.
—
and; I think you misunderstand me, but there is alot of subtlety. It is not incompetence qua incompetence, it is the reality that government workers, even with the best of intentions lack the neccessary information to make informed economic decisions because they are completely removed from the profit and loss feedback loop of private enterprise. Some may see this as exactly the proper enviroment from which to provide oversight, but I see it as trying to play darts blindfolded.
————
and ; In other words, yes consumers can be uninformed and defrauded, but at least they have a personal stake in the outcome.
————————————————
ok, so I haven’t been here for the whole conversation but you contradict your very own self here….and consumers, by the very act of their own consumption, already have a clue as to thier economic risk….the missing piece is whether or not the party they are doing business with is likely to defraud them or has such shoddy oversite that their PHYSICAL risk is now 1000fold. Business in corporate modality uses cost:benefit (profit) equations, not cost:benefit (quality) or cost:benefit (safety). There is not even a level playing field of cost:benefit:responsibility… Corporate equations take a pass on everything but the $$$$$
That is why they are so well liked.
@GeneH
Let’s take this in parts.
“You are bound because the social contract binds you to the rule of law. You submit to the rule of law for the benefits a society provides you. It is a contract you are, again, free to leave at any time. You are bound by retaining your American citizenship. If you do not wish to be subject to the laws and constructs created under the Constitution, become a citizen of another country. It’s just that simple. Just be prepared for the fact that you will, by taking their citizenship, be subject to their rules and governmental constructs instead.”
You’re saying then that by my failure to emigrate, I have somehow consented to to be bound to obey the laws of the U.S. First, no one has every asked me for my consent, or you for yours. Immigrants take an oath to obey the laws, but those of us born within the boundaries of the U.S. have not been asked and are not required to take any such oath promising to obey the laws.
Now consider for a moment the implication of such a demand. Suppose I refused to take such an oath, would I then not be bound to obey the laws. Could I be expelled from the country? Doesn’t this presuppose that the person demanding that we take this oath is an “authority” who has the right to expel us if we refuse, but it is his authority that is at issue in the first place and that supposedly depends on our consent. All this is quite circular and you glossed over it completely in your answer.
Now consider this, suppose I come to you and demand that you sign an oath to respect my commands and you refuse. Upon my refusal I claim the right to your house and order you to leave the country. What is your response? That such a demand is absurd? That I have no authority to demand that you take an oath, so you are free to ignore me? That your refusal in no way obligates you to leave the country?
My authority can only come from your explicit consent. If the reason for taking the oath is to give lawmakers authority by our consent, then unless they first have authority they cannot demand that we take an oath. And, if they have the authority, then the oath would not be necessary to establish authority.
As such, it is equally unwarranted to base authority of lawmakers on the tacit consent of everyone who chooses to live here. Choosing to live here only indicates consent if the lawmakers have the initial authority to demand your obedience of your exit in the first place.
Last, merely staying in country is highly ambiguous with regard to consent. I can be remaining here for many reasons, job, family, not wanting to learn another language, that do not imply consent to be bound by laws in any way. For example, many jews continued to live in Germany after they had a chance to escape, are we to conclude from their very presence that they consented to the Nuremberg laws?
Gene,
Also, if you think I’m a “lone wolf”? You might want to rethink that too. It’s not a reflection of reality.
kderosa,
Then they are free to complain as well as FFLEO did. Again, if you’ve got a problem with how I address you, you know your options, but whining to me isn’t going to result in anything but my continued amusement.